alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 41 (Friday, February 29, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-875]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0104; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-10]


Establishment of Class E Airspace; Oil City, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
that establishes a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation 
(RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach 
Procedures (IAPs) that serve the Northwest Medical Center in Oil City, 
PA.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 14, 2008. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, 
System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia 
Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-5581; fax (404) 305-
5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 71762). 
The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non 
controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse 
public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no 
adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on February 14, 2008. No adverse comments were 
received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, GA, on February 12, 2008.
John D. Haley,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 08-875 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**92 KA 11-01060**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

PETER J. VIANA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, TREVETT CRISTO SALZER & ANDOLINA P.C. (ERIC M. DOLAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered March 2, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DEAN A. SHELLEY, DOC #T81166, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3800 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 29, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Christopher Nash, Judge. Dean A. Shelley, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,855,927                  60,190
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,828,699               4,198,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                   122,000                  14,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,347,315               4,983,632
<PP&E>                                       7,508,463               3,468,723
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,189,939               1,248,922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,560,912               8,595,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,187,676               4,831,229
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        65,123                  46,252
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,630,418               3,196,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,560,912               8,595,238
<SALES>                                     34,865,557              18,818,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,865,557              18,818,839
<CGS>                                       17,663,690               8,705,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,554,138              15,091,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               108,153                 (9,200)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             592,841                 (1,343)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,718,578               3,728,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,598,989               1,916,926
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,119,589               1,811,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,119,589               1,811,692
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33                    0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33                    0.39
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN IRELAND, M.D., an individual,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BEND NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES,

LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; et

al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 35337

D.C. No. 6:16

- cv

- 02054

- MK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Magistrate Judge, Presiding * *

Submitted April 5 , 2023 * **

Before: WALLACE, D. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Ireland appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 5 2 023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 35337

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross

- motions

for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. Cnty

. San Diego , 670 F.3d

957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm

.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on

Ireland’s “rule of reason” Sherman Act claim because Ireland failed to raise a

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants either intended to harm

or unreasonably restrain competition or as to whether defendants actually caused

an injury to competition

. See Austin v. McNamara , 979 F.2d 728, 738

– 39 (9th Cir.

1992) (setting forth elements of a “rule of reason” Sherman Act § 1 claim)

.

The district court also properly granted summary judgment for defendants

on Ireland’s intentional interference with economic relations claim because Ireland

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants

intentionally interfere d with a professional or business relationship through

improper means or for an improper purpose

. See Kraemer v. Harding , 976 P.2d

1160, 1170 (Or. App. 1999) ( establishing elements of an intentional interference

with economic relations claim)

.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Jacqueline M. Lemke, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of XG Sciences, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2020;
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DATE: July 15, 2020



| | By: /s/ Jacqueline M. Lemke                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name: Jacqueline M. Lemke
        Title: Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
In the Matter of the No. 53274

- 3

- II Personal Restraint of NICHOLAS DANIEL HACHENEY, Petitioner. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

M ELNICK , J.

— Nicholas Hacheney seeks relief from personal restraint imposed as a result of his 2008 conviction for first degree murder. He was sentenced to 320 months of confinement, including a 240

- month mandatory minimum term of confinement under former RCW 9.94A.120(4) (1997). Under that statute, an offender cannot earn early release credits during that
240

- month term. In State v. Cloud , 95 Wn. App. 606, 617

- 18, 976 P.2d 649 (1999), this court held that Initiative 593, which was codified as former RCW 9.9 4A.120(4), was unconstitutional as it violated the single subject requirement of article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution. Hacheney argues that the constitutional infirmity of former RCW 9.44A.120(4) was not remedied until after the Clo ud decision, which was after the date of his crime, so the prohibition on earning early release credits during the mandatory minimum term of confinement was unconstitutional as to him. But as the Cloud court noted, former RCW 9.94A.120(4) had been reenact ed before its decision, and it expressed no opinion as to the validity of the reenacted statute. 95 Wn. App. at Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two September 24, 2019No. 53274

- 3

- II

2

618 n.26. Between its original enactment in 1994 and the date of Hacheney’s crime, December 26, 1997, former RCW 9.94A.120(4) was reenacted in Laws of 1995, ch. 108, § 3, Laws of 1996, ch. 93, § 1, and Laws of 1997, ch. 69, § 1, ch. 121, § 2, ch. 144, § 2, ch. 338, § 4, and ch. 340, § 2. Laws of 1997, ch. 338 was titled: “AN ACT Relating to offenders . . . reenacting and amending
RCW 9.94A.030 , 9.94A.120.” Thus, by the time of Hacheney’s crime, former RCW 9.94A.120(4) had been validly reenacted and was no longer constitutionally infirm. Pierce County v. State , 159 Wn.2d 16, 40

- 41, 148 P.3d 1002 (2006). Hacheney does not present grounds for r elief from restraint. We therefore deny his petition. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so order ed.

MELNICK, J. We concur:

MAXA, C.J.

LEE, J.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 9405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-769]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the 
Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards will be held on 
March 31-April 1, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day. The meeting 
will be held in Room 530 at 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The 
meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs on adverse health effects that may be associated 
with exposure to ionizing radiation, and to make recommendations on 
proposed standards and guidelines regarding VA benefit claims based 
upon exposure to ionizing radiation.
    The major items on the agenda for both days will be discussions of 
medical and scientific papers concerning the health effects of exposure 
to ionizing radiation. On the basis of the discussions, the Committee 
may make recommendations to the Secretary concerning the relationship 
of certain diseases to exposure to ionizing radiation. On March 31, 
there will be a presentation by a representative from the Department of 
Defense's Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program. The April 1 session 
will include planning for future Committee activities and assignment of 
tasks among the members.
    An open forum for oral statements from the public will be available 
for 30 minutes in the afternoon each day. People wishing to make oral 
statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, 
first-served basis and will be provided three minutes per statement.
    Members of the public wishing to attend should contact Ms. Bernice 
Green at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Compensation and Pension 
Service, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, by phone at 
(202) 461-9723, or by fax at (202) 275-1728. Individuals should submit 
written questions or prepared statements for the Committee's review to 
Ms. Green at least five days prior to the meeting. Those who submit 
material may be asked for clarification prior to its consideration by 
the Committee.

    Dated: February 11, 2008.

    By Direction of the Secretary:
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 08-769 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
---

Exhibit 32.2

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
|-------------------------------------------------
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906               
|OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002                

The undersigned, Yong Qing Ma,
the Chief Financial Officer of SINO GREEN LAND CORPORATION (the Company), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the
undersigned has executed this statement this 27thday of August, 2010.

| | /s/
      Yong Qing Ma       
| | -----------------------------
| | Yong Qing Ma                 
| | Chief Financial Officer      
| | (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Sino Green Land Corporation and will be retained by
Sino Green Land Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Exhibit 32 - Chief Executive and Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C., SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Steve Bergstrom, the undersigned Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Silver Hill Mines, Inc., (the Company), herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: November 12, 2010



By: /s/ Steve Bergstrom

Steve Bergstrom

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    150,000
<COMMON>                                         4,650
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,650
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,565
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,565
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,565
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,565
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 13946 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cr - 00264

- AT

- JFK

- 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ROGELIO RAMIREZ

- SOLORIO, a.k.a. Rojo, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( November 25, 2014 ) Before HULL , ROSENBAUM an d BLACK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-13946 Date Filed: 11/25/2014 Page: 1 of 22 James Howard, appointed counsel for Rogelio Ramirez

- Solorio, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) . Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRAN TED , and Ramirez

- Solorio’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 13-13946 Date Filed: 11/25/2014 Page: 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1750

In re: WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1750 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking a new trial 

related to his criminal convictions and alleging fraud on the court in two long-closed civil 

cases. We conclude that Davis is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. 

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 

F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Davis is not available by way of mandamus—he may not use 

mandamus to challenge his criminal convictions or to evade prefiling injunctions entered 

by this court and the district court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of 

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1750 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2